exec summary, but comments inline: I am in favour of two maturity levels.
"James" == James M Polk <jmpolk(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> writes:
James> At 09:44 PM 10/25/2010, John Levine wrote:
>> >I am happy to agree to what the draft currently says. We've sliced
>> >and diced this many times over the years, and this seems very close to
the
>> >least-unpopular view. That's the best we can hope for, imho.
James> I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, especially when I was
asked by an
James> AD during Maastricht to provide proof of 2 independent
implementations just
James> to have an ID I was presenting be considered to become a WG
James> item.
But, that's just wrong, regardless of 2 or 3 maturity levels.
This AD has just created a 5 maturity level system! (ID without interop,
ID with interop, PS, DS, FS). Do they really know what they asked for?
This is perhaps the fundamental problem.
James> That bar is just WAY too high.
James> That said, I think the only part I'm concerned about with your
proposal is
James> allowing Internet Standards to reference Proposed Standards. Given
that they
James> can change so much - or more likely - they can have parts of them
that just
James> aren't ever implemented, but still have one or more of these
un-implemented
James> parts that is a critical to the Internet Standard.
James> I guess if this clears the logjam of all the other issues, I'm
willing to
James> agree to this.
I agree with you, but I think we can work this out.
I am in favour of two maturity levels.
(see I can top-post and inline post at the same time!)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf